Procedural fairness in mental health review tribunals: the views of patient advocates.

Mental health review tribunals face the difficult task of balancing an obligation to be efficient and accessible against the obligation to provide procedural fairness. We conducted focus groups with lawyers and advocates who support people with matters before the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal to ascertain their views on issues relating to procedural fairness in this particular forum. Consistent with similar studies in other jurisdictions, our participants expressed concerns about how well informed their clients were about the proceedings, the probative value of the evidence relied upon and the extent to which medical evidence is effectively challenged. We analyse the concerns raised by our participants in light of the limited Australian case law on procedural fairness in mental health review tribunals.

Characteristics and re-offending outcomes of 'limiting-term' forensic patients found unfit to stand trial in New South Wales, Australia.

There are little published data on the characteristics or outcomes of offenders found unfit to stand trial who receive a 'qualified finding of guilt' in a Special Hearing in New South Wales (NSW) and are detained for a 'limiting term' (LT) under the supervision of the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). We examined NSW MHRT records linked to re-offending data, to report on the characteristics and outcomes of 69 LT patients in a cohort spanning two decades. The most common diagnoses were schizophrenia (54%) and intellectual disability (33%). Patients were detained on average for 4.2 years, which is slightly shorter than the average maximum term imposed. Of the 55 people for whom criminal record data were available, 9.1% were charged with an offence during the first year post-release and 60% overall were charged for at least one post-release offence during a follow-up period ranging from 4.7 to 11.1 years.

Forensic patients, treating psychiatrist and the Mental Health Review Tribunal - An ethical question?

OBJECTIVE: In inpatient forensic settings, a psychiatrist is expected to wear 'Two Hats', as a treating physician and as an expert to provide risk assessments and expert advice to the judicial authorities for leave and release decisions. Although dual roles have long been accepted as an inevitable part of independent forensic practice, there are additional ethical challenges for the treating psychiatrist to provide an expert opinion. This paper examines the specific ethical ambiguities for a treating psychiatrist at the interface of legal process related to leave and release decisions in the treatment of forensic patients. CONCLUSIONS: While respect for justice is the prevailing ethical paradigm for court-related forensic work, the medical paradigm should remain the key ethical framework for psychiatrists in treatment settings. Thus, psychiatrist should be aware of possible adverse consequences in acting as forensic experts for their patients. A conscientious adherence to clinical facts and awareness of the 'Two Hats' ethical pitfall can serve as important reference points in framing the psychiatric evidence in the decision-making process and safeguard treating psychiatrist's role.

Predictors of Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) outcome in a forensic inpatient population: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have investigated factors associated with outcome at Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs) in forensic psychiatric patients; however, dynamic variables such as treatment compliance and substance misuse have scarcely been examined, particularly in UK samples. We aimed to determine whether dynamic factors related to behaviour, cooperation with treatment, and activities on the ward were prospectively associated with outcome at MHRT. METHODS: At baseline, demographic, clinical, behavioural, and treatment-related factors were ascertained via electronic medical records and census forms completed by the patient's clinical team. Data on MHRTs (i.e., number attended, responsible clinician's recommendation, and outcome) were collected at a 2-year follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with outcome among those who attended a MHRT within the follow-up period. Of the 135 forensic inpatients examined at baseline, 79 patients (59%) attended a MHRT during the 2-year follow-up period and therefore comprised the study sample. Of these 79 patients included in the current study, 28 (35%) were subsequently discharged. RESULTS: In univariable analyses, unescorted community leave, responsible clinician's recommendation of discharge, and restricted Mental Health Act section were associated with a greater likelihood of discharge at MHRT; whilst inpatient aggression, a recent episode of acute illness, higher total score on the Historical Clinical Risk - 20 (HCR-20), higher HCR-20 clinical and risk scores, and agitated behaviour were negatively associated with discharge (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, HCR-20 clinical scale scores and physical violence independently predicted outcome at tribunal after controlling for other dynamic variables. CONCLUSION: By identifying dynamic factors associated with discharge at tribunal, the results have important implications for forensic psychiatric patients and their clinical teams. Our findings suggest that by reducing levels of agitated behaviour, verbal aggression, and physical violence on the ward, achieving unescorted community leave, and targeting specific items on the HCR-20 risk assessment tool, patients may be able to improve their changes of discharge at a MHRT.

La ley de salud mental en Inglaterra / The mental health act in England

Introduction: People can become extremely vulnerable during episodes of severe mental ill health. Their ability to protect themselves can become impaired. They can also pose significant risks to the safety of others through their erratic or hostile behaviour. It could be actually argued that it is precisely during a mental health crisis when explicit legal safeguards are of critical importance for the protection of people's rights, including their dignity and autonomy. Method: An outline is provided of how the Mental Health Act operates in England, with particular reference to involuntary admissions to hospital as well as the right of appeal through the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Results: The roles of medical professionals, Approved Mental Health Professionals, the Nearest Relative as well as the type of evidence that professionals must submit to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and how this evidence is challenged are discussed. Conclusions: The independent legal review of the involuntary detention of a person in hospital is discussed both regarding the protection of human rights it provides as well as in terms of its impact on promoting higher standards of care.

Introducción: Las personas afectadas de un episodio severo de enfermedad mental pueden encontrarse en un estado de alta vulnerabilidad, incluyendo el ser incapaces de protegerse. Durante estos episodios, dichas personas pueden también suponer un riesgo significativo para otros debido, por ejemplo, a una conducta errática u hostil. En este artículo se arguye que es durante estos períodos de crisis cuando se requiere de disposiciones legales explícitas que protejan los derechos, la dignidad, y la autonomía de dichas personas. Métodos: Se provee de un resumen de cómo funciona la Ley de Salud Mental en Inglaterra, con particular referencia a la hospitalización involuntaria así como al derecho de apelación que los pacientes tienen contra dicha hospitalización, la que es vista por el Tribunal de Salud Mental. Resultados: Se discuten los roles de los médicos, de los denominados Profesionales Aprobados de Salud Mental (AMHP) y del Familiar Más Cercano (Nearest Relative), así como el tipo de evidencia que todos los profesionales deben presentar ante el Tribunal de Salud Mental y cómo dicha evidencia es cuestionada en detalle tanto por el abogado del paciente como por los miembros del Tribunal de Salud Mental. Conclusión: Se discute la importancia del hecho de que la hospitalización involuntaria es sometida a una revisión legal independiente de la profesión médica. En particular, se hace referencia al efecto de dicho derecho de apelación en términos tanto de la protección de los derechos humanos de los pacientes así como de la mejoría de los estándares de la calidad de los servicios de psiquiatría.

New Zealand Mental Health Review Tribunal characteristics and outcomes 1993-2011.

OBJECTIVE: This paper provides a descriptive statistical overview of Mental Health Review Tribunal outcomes from 1992 to 2011. METHOD: A database used by administrators of the Mental Health Review Tribunal to store information on applicants and their hearing outcomes was subjected to basic descriptive analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3117 applications were received, with most applications received from males (n=2039, 65%) of New Zealand European ethnicity and a mean age of 49 years. A similar number of applications were received from inpatient and community patients (35%, 28% respectively). There was only a small percentage (7%) of applicants who were released and the number of applications withdrawn before a hearing took place was high, at 45%. CONCLUSION: The success rates of New Zealand Mental Health Review Tribunal applicants is low compared with some international jurisdictions, while at the same time withdrawals are high, warranting further investigation. Applicants in the community are underrepresented, which is of concern in the context of rising use of community treatment orders. Future research focused on service users' experiences of using the Mental Health Review Tribunal and improvements to the existing data stored on applicants are also suggested.

A 21-year retrospective outcome study of New South Wales forensic patients granted conditional and unconditional release.

AIM: To retrospectively examine the outcomes of forensic patients found not guilty by reason of mental illness (NGMI) in New South Wales (NSW) and subsequently released into the community, as measured by reoffending, conditional release revocation and psychiatric hospital readmission. METHOD: Data were collected from the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) files for all patients who received an NGMI verdict between January 1990 and December 2010, and who were released into the community during this period. The outcome measures of conditional release revocation and psychiatric hospital readmission were extracted from these files. Information about subsequent criminal charges, convictions and penalties were obtained from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research's reoffending database. RESULTS: During the 21-year period studied, 364 offenders received an NGMI verdict and were placed under the supervision of the MHRT. Of these, 197 were released into the community, including 85 who were granted unconditional release. Over a follow-up period averaging 8.4 years, 18% of conditionally released patients reoffended, 11.8% were convicted of a further offence, 8.7% were charged with a violent offence, 3.1% were convicted of a violent offence and 3.7% were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Five (3.1%) conditionally released forensic patients received a further NGMI verdict. One-quarter of the conditionally released patients had their conditional release revoked and half were readmitted to hospital. Of the forensic patients granted unconditional release, 12.5% were charged with an offence, 9.4% received convictions for an offence, 6.3% were charged with a violent offence and 4.7% were convicted of a violent offence, in a mean follow-up period of 7.6 years. None committed a further serious offence resulting in a term of imprisonment, nor a second NGMI verdict. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the treatment and rehabilitation of forensic patients in NSW, together with the decision-making procedures of the MHRT, is effective in protecting the community from further offending by forensic patients.

R v. Canons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, ex parte A.

KIE: England's High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, quashed the decision of a mental health tribunal to detain for treatment an involuntary patient. Her refusal of appropriate treatment essentially made her untreatable, thus voiding any legal ground for commitment. The patient, a woman identified as A, had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for reactive depression in an impulsive personality. About seven months later, she sought release. Prior to the tribunal decision, her condition was reclassified to "psychopathic disorder." The law entitles those patients classified as psychopaths or mentally impaired, but not those patients classified as mentally ill or severely mentally impaired, to release from involuntary commitment unless a criminal offense is committed. The court determined that under the provisions of the 1983 Mental Health Act and the European Human Rights Convention, the tribunal's findings obliged its members to release A.^ieng